"The Desolation of Smaug" is over two and a half hours in length, yet it doesn't feel like a complete movie. I will start with the ending which is infuriating, probably the most infuriating ending or non-ending I have ever seen. I saw this film in a large crowded theatre and at the end I heard endless groans from everyone including the kids sitting behind me who couldn't have been more than ten or eleven years old. This might've been due to the frustration of paying to see a big 3-D movie but not seeing a film that feels finished. I'm sure everyone knew going into this film that this was the second in a planned trilogy of the famed J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy novel, but they probably didn't have an idea that it was going to end with such a teasing pre-climax; in retrospect the whole film didn't amount to much and it's sort of ironic that in a movie about traveling and moving forward, we don't get very far.
"The Desolation of Smaug" or "Hobbit 2" whichever you like to call it starts off promising as it picks up where the last one left off. Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Gandalf (Ian McKellan) and their gang of Dwarves led by leader Thorin (Richard Armitage) escape a band of Orcs as they make their way to the mountain guarded by the infamous Dragon Smaug so Thorin can reclaim his kingdom. The vast world of Middle Earth is again brought to life vividly by Peter Jackson and his creative team, this is Jackson's fifth crack at this fantasy world afterall, so it's hard to see him muck it up too much. Along the way the group encounter a bunch of fantastical characters including a giant who can be reasoned with unless he unexpectedly changes into a bloodthirsty bear. They then cut through a murky forest that is full of creepy crawly spiders prepared to make them their dinner, afterwards they are saved but held captive by a group of elves that includes familiar face Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and a new face Tauriel (Evangaline Lily). Once Bilbo helps the group escape, they outrun the Orcs in the film's best sequence a barrel chase down wild rapids, and are again helped by a boatman (Luke Evans) to get safe passage to their destination.
There is much to admire in this film, Jackson is a visionary director along the lines of James Cameron who takes pleasure in creating whole new worlds with the best technology at his disposal. Since his first outing to Middle Earth in 2001, Jackson has helped revolutionize special effects for a new generation and part of this film's appeal is seeing all of work that paid off with the detail. The most impressive creation of all is Smaug the Dragon brought to life with the same technology it took to create that other memorable villain Gollum. Here Smaug is voiced in the menacing tone by Benedict Cumberbatch , and the reveal of him is one of the film's awe inspiring moments. But it is also here where the film has shown its hand too pre maturely and the momentum soon diminishes.
This all comes down to the question that has been asked of this new franchise since the decision to turn it into three separate films was announced; was three films necessary? Judging from what I have seen of these first two installments, I would say no, but then I suppose you have to remember that this is pretty much how movies are made these days. I'm curious as to how much of a decision Peter Jackson had in splitting "The Hobbit" into three films, or was it more the studios decision in order to have a more viable franchise on the hands? Either way, the cynic in me senses a more profit motivation rather than a creative one. I'm sure fans of the book will agree such a simple straight forward story doesn't warrant three films, but for better or worse that's what we get.
However it's because of this decision, we don't really get "The Hobbit" as it was written because this must also work as a prequel to the much larger story of "The Lord of the Rings". Hence, we are given a subplot of Gandalf going off on his own adventure to discover a deeper seeded evil behind an even bigger threat, one guess as to who that turns out to be. This little side trip along with some other added scenes that aren't in the book are part of the whole "Hobbit/Lord of the Rings" movie experience package that is now expected in a fanboy culture. It's a way to expand the universe these stories come from and has become a norm in movie franchise entertainment.
This also creates a much darker tone to the film that I'm not sure fits with the original Tolkien vision, which was about a small insignificant Hobbit who leaves his world of comfort and becomes somewhat of a reluctant hero in his pursuit of adventure. The original story included wit, which the film undercuts with some modern violence; it's been awhile since I first read "The Hobbit" but I don't remember as many Orc decapitations that are in this film. The film has been praised for its darker tone as opposed to the last one, but I much prefer that one as it had the classic scene between Bilbo and Gollum in a game of riddles that was both playful and sinister. Jackson isn't much of a man of wit and whimsy, he's a man of action and set pieces, which I suppose best suits the movie going public of today.
There is a hint of humour in the film and that mostly comes from the perfectly cast Freeman as Bilbo. Freeman isn't given much time to shine which is a cardinal sin in a film that is named after his character, but he is the movie's secret weapon. The moments Bilbo is able to show off his bravery but also his unease in frightening situations are great comic highlights, and its these brief moments of character I enjoyed the most, he proves to be an ideal counterpoint to the more sombre performance of Elijah Wood's Frodo in the earlier films. For some reason the focus of "Desolation" has to do with Armitage's King Dwarf Thorin, who reminded me too much of a smaller version of Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn. This shift of focus from the book suggests Jackson's preference of the born heroes rather than the reluctant ones personified by The Hobbit characters; suffice it to say, I much more identified with Bilbo's struggle to find his courage rather than Thorin's somewhat selfish struggle to regain his kingdom, but Jackson thinks differently.
"The Desolation of Smaug" is by no means a bad film, it's well crafted with some very visionary splendor, I want to see how the story turns out, mostly to see if Bilbo is able get more of the focus in the finale. I wish it was more cheerful and fun as it was envisioned by Tolkien, but this is Jackson's interpretation and judging by the box office it's not hurting anyone financially. Films of these kind seem more and more bereft of joy and humour, they have the habit of having a sombre almost Apocalyptic tone to them, who would of thought that a story involving Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, Dragons, Wizards, and shape shifting giants could find a way to take itself too seriously?
